1. The defendant C and the defendant D are jointly and severally liable to the succeeding intervenor of the plaintiff A limited liability company 1,005,842,632.

1. As to the succeeding intervenor, the defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) and the defendant D’s claim against the succeeding intervenor and the plaintiff B limited company

(a) the reasons for the attachment to the indication of the claim and the reasons for the application for intervention in succession;

(b) Judgment on deemed confession of applicable provisions of Acts (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in subparagraphs 22-1 and 2-1 and 2 as to the claims filed by Plaintiff A limited liability company against the Defendants, Plaintiff A limited liability company entered into a contract with the succeeding intervenor on September 10, 2018 with respect to the acquisition money claim against Defendant C and the joint and several surety claim against Defendant D, as indicated in the grounds for the claim in the separate sheet, and on October 4, 2018, notified the said Defendants of the assignment of claims.

According to the above facts of recognition, Plaintiff A limited liability company is no longer a creditor against Defendant C and Defendant D. Thus, Plaintiff A limited liability company’s claim against the Defendants is without merit without further determination.

3. As to the successor intervenor and the defendant E company of the plaintiff B limited liability company (hereinafter "defendant E").

A. As long as the claims of the creditor holding the preserved claim have been established before the fraudulent act, the transferee can exercise the obligee's right of revocation even if the claims have been transferred, and in this case, even if the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claim have been met after the fraudulent act, the transferee cannot be an obstacle to the obligee's right of revocation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da5822 Decided June 29, 2006). The fact that the plaintiffs held each claim against the defendant C, such as the entry of the cause of the claim in the separate sheet, is without dispute between the parties, and the plaintiff A limited liability company entered into a payment contract with the succeeding intervenor for the claim against the defendant C during the duration of the lawsuit in this case and notified the transfer of the claim to the defendant C.